Sui, Steven Wing-Yuen v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs
[1996] FCA 1191
•27 NOVEMBER 1996
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - MIGRATION - appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") affirming a deportation order - whether appellant a "stateless person" - whether appellant a danger to public order - whether AAT failed to consider hardship to appellant as result of deportation - whether Minister bound by sentencing comments of District Court - whether earlier decisions not to deport estopped Minister from making deportation order
Migration Act 1958, s 200, s 201
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954, Art 1, 31
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, applied
Re Ceskovic and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 453, cited
Daguio v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987)
71 ALR 173, cited
Re Gogebaken and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 544, distinguished
STEVEN WING-YUEN SUI -v-
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
No NG 345 of 1996
Wilcox, Lindgren & Tamberlin JJ
Sydney
27 November 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 345 of 1996
GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CONSTITUTED BY HIS HONOUR JUSTICE RODNEY N PURVIS
GIVEN ON 29 MARCH 1996
BETWEEN: STEVEN WING-YUEN SUI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Respondent
CORAM: WILCOX, LINDGREN and TAMBERLIN JJ
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATED: 27 NOVEMBER 1996
MINUTE OF ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 345 OF 1996 GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CONSTITUTED BY HIS HONOUR JUSTICE RODNEY N PURVIS
GIVEN ON 29 MARCH 1996
BETWEEN: STEVEN WING-YUEN SUI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Respondent
CORAM: WILCOX, LINDGREN & TAMBERLIN JJ
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATED: 27 NOVEMBER 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
Introduction
On 27 November 1996 the Court dismissed an appeal brought by Steven Wing-Yuen Sui against the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT"). These are the Court's reasons for dismissing the appeal.
The decision of the AAT given on 29 March 1996 affirmed a deportation order made by a delegate of the Minister.
Background
The matters set out below are taken from the reasons for decision given by the AAT.
Mr Sui was born in China on 18 April 1950. Prior to entry into Australia on 26 June 1977, he had been living in Malaysia where he had a wife and four children. His occupation was then that of a karate instructor, and it was for the purpose of pursuing his expertise in this field and teaching that he was invited by a school in Western Australia to spend time in this country.
At the time of entry into Australia, Mr Sui was in possession of a Certificate of Identity issued on 31 May 1977 by the Malaysian authorities. This certificate expired on 31 May 1978. The certificate was said to be valid only for Singapore and Australia. On 31 May 1977, the certificate was endorsed with a visa and a re-entry permit to Malaysia. The latter enabled the holder to re-enter and resume residence in West Malaysia within six months of 31 May 1977.
Mr Sui applied for and, on 23 June 1977 was issued with, a temporary entry permit to Australia by an authorised officer at the Australian High Commission, Kuala Lumpur, for a stay of twelve months. On 26 June 1977 he arrived at Perth and was permitted to enter Australia and to remain for twelve months.
Mr Sui had been nominated for entry to Australia by the Margaret River Districts Karate Centre. The chief instructor at the Centre claimed that Mr Sui then was:
"the Highest Rank closest to Australia in our particular style" [of the martial arts].
Following his arrival in Australia, Mr Sui became associated with the Centre to such an extent that an application was made to the Malaysian authorities seeking an extension of the period of validity of the re-entry permit as endorsed on his certificate of identity. In August 1977, the office of the Malaysian High Commissioner in Canberra cautioned that:
"It is not the Government's policy to grant a validity of more than six months to Certificate of Identity, Visas and Re-entry Permits as the holders are not Malaysian citizens".
On 1 December 1977, Mr Sui was informed that his application to renew the Certificate of Identity, visa and re-entry permit to Malaysia had been rejected, and that:
"... [his] failure to return to Malaysia at the expiry of [his] document has resulted in the loss of [his] permanent resident status".
On 19 December 1977, an application for permanent residency in Australia was made on behalf of Mr Sui to the Minister's Department. On 11 February 1978, an application for entry for settlement was formally made.
On 27 June 1978 and on 12 September 1978, Mr Sui applied for a further entry permit. The application for entry was not approved, but in an internal minute of the Minister dated 10 October 1978, it was noted that:
"as Mr Sui does not have right of entry into Malaysia, where does he go when we ask him to leave Australia?"
On 11 October 1978, in a Departmental telex, it was stated that:
"Unless you can prevail upon H.C. [High Commission] to amend decision I suggest as it is not possible to enforce his departure from Aust and to continue T/R [temporary residence] inappropriate no alternative to P/R [permanent residence]".
Inquiries were put in train as to places to which Mr Sui might be deported and as to the circumstances:
"... that rendered him stateless and issue of Malaysian C of I [Certificate of Identity]."
In an interview conducted with a Departmental officer on 20 November 1978, Mr Sui stated that in 1957 he and his mother had joined his father in Malaysia. His parents later separated and were divorced. In about 1975 the material states:
"He applied for Malaysian citizenship but because he was born in China and was unable to produce details of his birth, he was refused Malaysian citizenship. He has not made a further application since then as he considered he would still not be eligible ... He has not lived in any other country."
On 1 December 1978, notification was given of a change in status, and on 13 December 1978, Mr Sui was sought to be informed of special approval having been given to proceed with the application for residential status. His resident status was approved on 13 February 1979.
In Departmental material of February 1979, the "citizenship" of Mr Sui was noted as "stateless".
In March 1979, Mr Sui was sought by the Western Australian Police authorities in connection with their enquiries into the passing of "bad cheques for about $30,000", and a request for information as to his whereabouts together with a photograph was inserted in the police gazette. Mr Sui was located in Sydney later that year. He was charged and, on 1 February 1980, convicted and sentenced to periods of imprisonment. The Department thought that Mr Sui had, by reason of his conviction, rendered himself liable for deportation and considered whether to make a deportation order. Contemporaneous police records record the opinion of a police officer that Mr Sui:
"... will offend again, tends to live above means, co-operates when questioned, is frightened will be deported for criminal activity".
According to an internal Departmental memorandum of 27 February 1980, Mr Sui was then liable for deportation under s 13 of the Migration Act:
"However, in view of his peculiar circumstances in being refused re-admission to his previous Country of residence by the Malaysian Authorities and there being no possibility of effecting his deportation to mainland China, his country of birth, it does not appear feasible to take any further action in this case".
Accordingly, it was "agreed" by the Secretary of the Department:
"... that deportation action is not appropriate on the basis of Sui's criminal record to date".
The Secretary continued by saying:
"However, he should be warned that if he incurs any further conviction the question of his deportation to China, in the absence of authority for him to return to Malaysia, might be explored".
A warning was accordingly issued to Mr Sui in person whilst he was in custody at Perth on 20 March 1980.
On 15 July 1980, Mr Sui applied for Australian citizenship, but in October of that year, withdrew the application. He was informed that:
"The outcome would depend on his behaviour in the meantime".
On 8 January 1981, he sought a Certificate of Identity from the Australian authorities.
Mr Sui was, on 28 January 1981, convicted of possession of cannabis and fined $400 with court costs. The fine was not paid and a warrant of commitment issued. It was noted, on 26 August 1981, that the offence rendered him liable to deportation. He was sought by police and a notice was published in the police gazette.
Further to an inquiry made by the Australian High Commission, Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian Director of Immigration, on 3 October 1981, stated that:
"...since subject's [Mr Sui's] Certificate of Identity has expired, his application for re-entry permit is rejected."
Mr Sui renewed his application for Australian citizenship on 7 January 1982, notifying the loss of his Australian Certificate of Identity on 5 February 1982. He was then living in Sydney, was employed as a karate chief instructor, and had married one Kia Ing Ling in October 1981.
In a "personal statement" of Mr Sui made in support of his application for citizenship on 10 March 1982, whilst detailing the conviction of 1 February 1980, he made no mention of the drug convictions of 1981 and the warrant of commitment of July 1981.
On about 31 July 1984, Mr Sui was charged with counts of supply and possession of heroin in respect of which he was committed for trial on 21 December 1984. On 6 December 1985, on a plea of guilty to a count of conspiracy to supply heroin, he was sentenced to three and a half years' penal servitude with a non-parole period of two years. The sentence was to date from 30 July 1984. In his reasons for sentence, the sentencing Judge said, inter alia:
"The quantity of heroin involved was large, that is to say nearly half a kilogram with a street value of approximately $750,000 ... I do not accept that the prisoner was as naive as he claims..."
The Court was not at that time informed of Mr Sui's prior convictions, and the sentence imposed was made without knowledge of his prior criminal record.
On 3 February 1986, in a letter to the Minister, Mr Sui wrote:
"I am thirty six years old. I have been married for five years. My baby was born one year ago when I was in prison. Since my baby was born my life changed. I feel like a father and I feel that I want to help bring my baby up properly. Being in prison has also changed me. My wife had a
difficult time when I was away and I want to make things up to her if I can.
I got involved with the drug business stupidly to help a friend. I do not run away from my guilt but I did not organise these drugs. Please see what the judge said about me.
I want to start a new business in Australia and I believe I can make good. I have pleaded guilty to this charge to show I am sorry and I have helped the police in other ways, at risk to myself. I have nowhere else to go. Please give me one more chance."
Mr Sui's wife supported his request.
Mr Sui was given a second warning by the Department on 7 July 1986. The warning reads as follows:
"... you are warned that any further conviction which renders you liable to deportation will lead to the question of your deportation being considered by the Minister. Consequently, if you again become liable to deportation, you should expect that disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you when the Minister considers your case..."
A charge of assault was laid in 1987 against Mr Sui. This related to an occasion when he "slapped" his wife, hit her and punched her. Police were called by neighbours. Mr Sui pleaded guilty.
Mr Sui separated from his wife and two children some time prior to January 1988. He then began to live in a de facto relationship with a Japanese woman.
Mr Sui had been released from prison in January 1986 and was on parole to mid-1988. Seemingly, the second warning given to Mr Sui had little effect upon him, for on 2 July 1989, he was arrested and charged with various offences, including supply of heroin. He had been working teaching karate and was living with his Japanese girlfriend in a penthouse in Bondi. As a result of his involvement in 1988 and 1989 in the heroin trafficking in respect of which he was charged and later convicted, he said that he received about $30,000. He admitted that the premises were used as a gambling place, and that he was responsible for only a proportion of the rent. Whilst he was living in the penthouse, he saw his children twice a week and sometimes brought them to the penthouse. His Japanese girlfriend was then working as a model, although Mr Sui does not think that she had a permit to work in Australia. At the time of his arrest, Mr Sui was in possession of firearms that he said a friend had asked him to look after. During a police raid, two rifles were found in Mr Sui's possession and other rifles in a location in the penthouse. Cocaine and cannabis smoking implements were also found by the police and Mr Sui admitted to using cocaine and marijuana at the time. His children had visited the penthouse when these various items and implements were in a bedroom of the penthouse.
The summary offences were dealt with at the St James Local Court on 16 March 1990. In respect of two charges of "possession of prohibited drugs," he was sentenced on each count to six months' hard labour, in respect of "possession of firearm," sentenced to three months' hard labour, in respect of "possession of equipment to administer prohibited drug," fined $250, and in respect of "administering a prohibited drug," fined $500. Mr Sui went to trial on the indictable offence on 9 September 1991, pleading not guilty to three charges of supplying an amount of a prohibited drug, being not less than the commercial quantity applicable, the drug in question being heroin. After the trial had proceeded for a number of days, and when the main lay witness and the arresting officer had given evidence, Mr Sui changed his plea to guilty.
An order for deportation was made on 28 February 1994.
At the time of the hearing of the application for review before the AAT, Mr Sui was serving the remainder of his sentence, and further to a decision of the Serious Offenders Review Council made on 7 July 1995, was on day industrial training and education leave at Schubert's Patisserie, Marrickville. He was also engaged as an instructor in the gym instructor course, Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, at St Leonards.
In summary the criminal history of Mr Sui is as follows:
DATE OFFENCE SENTENCE
June 1978 Dangerous Driving Fined $60
Driver's licence cancelled
July 1978 False Pretences $50 Good Behaviour
bond for 6 months
February 1980 False Pretences 2 Months' Imprisonment
False Pretences 2 Months' Imprisonment
(Cumulative)False Pretences 2 Months' Imprisonment
(Concurrent)False Pretences 3 Months' Imprisonment
(Cumulative)False Pretences 3 Months' Imprisonment
(Concurrent)False Pretences 7 Months' Imprisonment
(4 charges)
January 1981 Possession of Fined $400
Cannabis
February 1985 Conspiracy to 3 Years 6 Months'
Supply Imprisonment
Supply Heroin 2 Years' Non-Parole
from 30 July 1984
June 1987 Assault Female 12 Months' Good Behaviour
with a Self Recognizance
of $500
June 1989 Possess Cocaine 6 Months' Imprisonment
Possess Cannabis 6 Months' Imprisonment
(Concurrent)Possess Implements Fined $250
Self Administer Fined $500
Possess Firearms 3 Months' Imprisonment
(Concurrent)
December 1991 Supply Heroin 7 Years' Imprisonment
in respect of each of
three offences (Concurrent)
In a "Report of Conviction of Person coming within the Scope of the Migration Act 1958", an officer of the New South Wales Police Force noted that Mr Sui was then:
"... well known in heroin trafficking circles in Sydney with a large number of criminal associations".
Legislation
As at the date when the AAT gave its decision on 29 March 1996, the Migration Act 1958 relevantly provided:
"200.The Minister may order the deportation of a non-citizen to whom this Division applies.
201.Where:
(a)a person who is a non-citizen has, either before or after the commencement of this section, been convicted in Australia of an offence;
(b)when the offence was committed the person was a non-citizen who:
(i)had been in Australia as a permanent resident:
(A)for period of less than 10 years; or
(B)for periods that when, added together, total less than 10 years; or
(ii) ... and
(c)the offences is an offence for which the person was sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than one year,
section 200 applies to the person.
Stateless person
The first alleged error of law is that the AAT should have been satisfied that Mr Sui was a "stateless person". It is said that the AAT gave no reasoned analysis for not making a finding that Mr Sui came within the "Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons" 1954 to which Australia acceded on 13 December 1973.
Under Article 1(1) of that Convention a "stateless person" is defined as:
"... a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law."
Article 31 provides:
"Expulsion
1.The Contracting States shall not expel a stateless person lawfully staying in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
2.The expulsion of such a stateless person shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the stateless person shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before a competent authority or a person or persons specifically designated by the competent authority.
3.The Contracting States shall allow such a stateless person a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary."
This Article is in the same terms as Article 32 of the Refugee Convention which, as the AAT pointed out, was considered by
this Court in Re Ceskovic and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 453 and Re Todea and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 639.
After referring to these authorities the AAT said:
"97. It is questionable whether the Applicant can be said to be stateless as there is no evidence that the People's Republic of China does not consider the Applicant to be a national of that country. The Tribunal in the present application is not satisfied that the applicant is a stateless person. Even if he had been so, he may be deported from Australia, his country of residence, under the terms of Article 31. In considering whether the deportation of the Applicant would be consistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention, the Tribunal would need to make a finding that in the circumstances of this case, the deportation decision was being made on the grounds of public order. Such a finding would have been available to the Tribunal.
(Emphasis added)
It is important when considering the AAT reasons to bear in mind the recent remarks of the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272, that:
".... the reality [is]that the reasons of an administrative decision-maker are meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon over-zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed."
The Court is charged with the task of looking at the substance of the reasons as a whole, rather than scrutinising particular sentences or expressions, some of which might be considered infelicitous when examined in isolation.
In the present case the only States, apart from Australia, of which there was evidence of any connection were the People's Republic of China where Mr Sui was born in April 1950 and Malaysia where he lived prior to June 1977.
While there was evidence that Mr Sui's application to re-enter Malaysia had been rejected and that he had lost his permanent resident status, there was no evidence that the People's Republic of China did not consider him to be a national. There was no evidence that Mr Sui had made any attempt to determine whether he had lost Chinese nationality or whether he could re-enter the Republic.
The AAT relied on this absence of evidence in reaching its conclusion that it was not satisfied that he was a stateless person. This is not a case where the AAT erred by imposing any onus of proof on either party. Rather, the AAT considered the overall state of the evidence, evaluated it, and reached its conclusion.
A further submission was that the Departmental records showed that the Department had previously accepted that Mr Sui was a
stateless person and should not now be allowed to proceed on a different basis.
The materials in evidence indicate a number of scattered references in Departmental files to Mr Sui as "stateless". There is no evidence of any decision committing the Department to an acceptance of that description of status. It is fair to regard the status of Mr Sui, as referred to in the documentary material, as being under discussion and the descriptions of it as tentative. There are also references in the material to exploring the possibility of his deportation to China and to his nationality or citizenship as "Chinese".
The material does not justify a conclusion that Mr Sui's statelessness had been decided upon or accepted so as to bind or estop the Minister or Department. Moreover, in performing his statutory duty, the Minister is not, in a case of this nature, amenable to the principles of estoppel, having regard to the importance of the public interest; Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 per Mason CJ at 17-18. There is therefore no substance in this submission.
In our view, the reasons of the AAT do not disclose any error of law in relation to the question of statelessness.
Public order
The AAT also expressed the view that it was open to it to find that the deportation decision could be justified on the basis of the public order exception to Article 31 of the Convention. In Re Ceskovic (supra), Davies J said (at 455):
"So far as the evidence shows, the applicant has caused more harm in and to Australia than he has in or to Yugoslavia. But this conclusion is not necessary to found an order for deportation. It is sufficient that his continued presence in Australia is a danger to Australian citizens and to others whom Australia permits to enter its borders."
In the present case, given the lengthy, persistent and serious criminal misconduct of Mr Sui, it was open to the AAT to consider that he came within the exception to Article 31(1) of the Convention as presenting a danger to public order.
Gogebakan Decision
The appellant put a further submission based on what counsel described as the "Gogebakan Principle". The submission here is that the AAT failed to take into account the hardship to Mr Sui in deporting him to a country which he left as a young child, or alternatively, in not investigating the hardship which might be incurred by Mr Sui as a result of deportation.
It is not necessary, of course, when making a deportation order, for the Minister's delegate to specify a particular destination to which the person will be deported: Daguio v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 71 ALR 173.
In Re Gogebakan and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 544 at 547, a Deputy-President of the AAT, Mr Bannon QC, said:
".... the present case ... [is] one in which the applicant arrived in Australia as a child with his family. Now that the applicant is twenty-five years old, his criminal record does not ... justify sending him back to a country which is now alien to him and his family."
That case is patently different to the present because, when he first came to Australia, Mr Sui was not a child of tender years. He was 27 years old. He had a wife and 4 children. He had lived in Malaysia since 1957.
In any event, the AAT's reasons for decision expressly note the submission that Mr Sui would be a stranger in Malaysia or China, having lived in Australia for two-fifths of his life. The AAT's reasons also disclose that the AAT had reservations as to the extent of hardship in this respect, because Mr Sui had maintained contacts with the Asian community. The AAT then proceeded to balance the competing considerations. The reasons of the AAT do not disclose any error of law in relation to this matter.
Effect of sentencing comments
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Minister was bound by certain remarks made by Judge Kinchington, of the New South Wales District Court, on 20 December 1991, when
sentencing Mr Sui on the supply of heroin charges, after Mr Sui had pleaded guilty in the course of the trial. After referring to reports tendered in relation to the sentencing, his Honour went on to say:
"... They show in my opinion that you are well on the road to rehabilitating yourself from your past criminal conduct.
.... I am satisfied ... that you have come to the realisation that you will have to live in our society by lawful means."
His Honour proceeded to sentence Mr Sui to a maximum term of seven years in respect of each of the convictions, to be served concurrently.
Neither the Minister nor the AAT were, of course, bound by the sentencing comments of Judge Kinchington. The Minister had a different discretion to exercise from that of a sentencing judge in a criminal prosecution. The Minister and the AAT could take the remarks into account, if they were made aware of them, but they were not bound to give them any controlling weight.
The Minister and the AAT had to assess, for themselves, the prospects of recidivism and balance these prospects against the interests of the Australian community, in determining whether Mr Sui should remain in Australia. The AAT had to exercise the discretion at the time when it made its decision having regard to the circumstances, policies and relevant
considerations prevailing at the time when the decision is made. This is what the AAT did in the present case.
On no view can it be said that there is any error of law based on the ground that the Minister, the Department, or the AAT should have considered himself or itself bound by, or should have followed, the remarks of Judge Kinchington.
Effect of earlier decision not to deport
It was submitted that because earlier decisions had been made by the Department not to take steps to deport Mr Sui, the Minister was thereby estopped from subsequently deciding to deport him.
On 20 March 1980 a decision was taken by the Department not to proceed to deport Mr Sui but he was warned that the matter would be reconsidered if he incurred any further convictions.
On 27 July 1986 the Regional Director of the Department informed Mr Sui that despite his conviction for participating in a conspiracy to supply heroin, which rendered him liable for deportation, the Department had decided not to put his case before the Minister to consider deportation. However, the letter of notification warned that if he disregarded the warning this circumstance would weigh heavily against him when the Minister came to consider his case on any move to deport him.
In view of the above express warnings, these decisions can hardly be said to preclude the Minister from later deciding to deport Mr Sui in circumstances where he was convicted of subsequent offences. Perusal of his criminal record discloses that after 1985 Mr Sui was convicted of assaulting a female, possessing cocaine and cannabis, self administering drugs, and possessing firearms and equipment to administer prohibited drugs. In 1991 he was sentenced, as we have seen, to seven years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to supplying heroin.
Having regard to Mr Sui's clear disregard of the warnings, it cannot reasonably be suggested that the Minister was precluded from deciding to deport him. The warnings given by the Minister are inconsistent with the terms of the suggested representation upon which the estoppel is said to be founded.
The deportation decision of the delegate was made on 28 February 1994. The delegate was clearly bound to take convictions after 1986 into account when deciding whether to deport. Because the Ministerial discretion must be exercised afresh each time a decision is to be made, there is no room for the operation of estoppel by reason of earlier Departmental decisions not to deport in the circumstances then prevailing.
Accordingly, there is no substance in this final submission.
Finally, the Court notes that while a constitutional challenge was foreshadowed, as we understand it, on the basis of integration of Mr Sui into the Australian community, this submission was withdrawn prior to the close of the hearing. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider this matter.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the appeal from the decision of the AAT was dismissed with costs.
I certify that this and
the preceding twenty-two (22)
pages are a true copy of the
Reasons for Judgment herein of
the Court.
Associate:
Date: 4 April 1997
Solicitor for Applicant: Mr Martin Churchill
Counsel for Respondent: Mr R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for Respondent: Australian Government
Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 27 November 1996
Date Judgment Delivered: 27 November 1996
0
4
0